Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Question for our Christian visitors

Posted on: September 24, 2006 - 2:11pm

Randalllord

Posts: 690

Joined: 2006-04-12

Offline

Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

based on the figures , about half the world does NOT follow the Abrahamic God. IOW, there is NOT a clear majority following the one 'God'. And of course many of those who do would probably disagree with you that Allah is the same as Yahweh.

Right, about half doesn't, but the largest following generally speaking is of the Abrahamic God. The rest of the 50% covers following of 1000's of different gods including the non-believing community that follows no god.

The educated people from different followings would agree that Allah is the same God, but the break down is the following. The Muslims claim that though Jesus was a great prophet (suggesting they are agreeing that the God of Jesus is the same God they follow) he was not the son of God.

BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course all such belief is subjective, since there is no evidence that could prove, or even unambiguously point to the existence or nature of any such being.

yet subjective belief here seems to be quite universal. Doesn't follow the rules of subjectivity. Subjective rules suggest that the belief systems would sever any type of connection to another belief system in fear that both belief systems would get confused with each other. The contrary is true.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reason why most people don't accept this simple fact is that people are not predominantly rational in their thought processes, and because of those inherent urges to 'see' indications of a 'higher power' in many things. Or that we prefer interesting stories over boring or inconvenient truths.

I've heard that excuse many times, but I have yet to hear a rational POV for that perspective. Only that it doesn't make sense in their mind, therefore the others must not be thinking rationally.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It IS easy to show and accept this IF you are well-informed on current science, not just the physical sciences, but the social sciences, and the rapidly advancing sciences of our own minds, our psychology, the way our societies interact, etc., AND you have managed to really purge the childhood irrationalities from your thinking, which may not be easy itself.

You do remember I expressed interest in your podcasts and have listened to them... are you sure you want to stick with that perspective?

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not necessarily inevitable or logical that you 'would have found the truth' by the particular studies you have done. It depends what those studies were, and what deeper preconceptions you still had. From your postings here, you still have false assumptions about the nature of science, as well as ignorance about the current state of our knowledge in many fields, and a poor understanding of what constitutes a proper, logical, study of a topic.

Many highly acclaimed brains out there have made the claim that they have "found the truth" by the particular studies they have done.... but of course it depends on what those studies were and not all those claims may be founded logically.

I would love to discuss those false assumptions I supposedly have about the nature of science and the ignorance of the current state of our knowledge in many fields... we'll cover them one at a time. That way we can be sure that I have the proper understanding of each before moving on.

BobSpence1 wrote:

We have told you what would constitute evidence. It is not our fault that you can't find any that satisfies our criteria, since it probably doesn't exist. Or that it is not possible to get evidence for the existence of a God being, especially if it is one that apparently has decided to make the world look like what science would expect to see if there was no God.

uh... you're telling me then you have dissected the process of confirming miracles of God and have a thoroughly written thesis on your findings? I would love to read it. beyond that, I haven't presented evidences, only dissected irrational expectations from others on what evidences should be expected... as far as you and I go, we have clarified where each of us stand as far as expected evidences and why certain expectations were in fact irrational and others logical. This is why I took the confirmed miracle approach.

If there's another avenue you want to pursue as far as evidence, just name it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Really I keep asking you simply why you believe, not so much about evidence, just what are your personal reasons?

I have given that summary many times. I'll share some of it again.

You seem to want to avoid evidence, so I'll avoid listing the avenues of studies that helped me come to the conclusion that I have. I will mention that I have experienced personal miracles and answers to prayer, have had conversations with this God, had situations in my life that are too ironic to be ironic and have seen God come through for us time and time again in difficult times. I have observed group settings where this God was legitimately present and understood to be and in similar situations observed groups where this God was not present and have seen the drastic difference in group dynamics. Again situations that might likely be too ironic to be ironic... as far as why the Christian God and not others, that goes into studies of religions and history of churches. that I guess would be a bit more evidence based rather than experience based.

Is that kind of what you were looking for? If not, you've got to be a little more specific then.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is massive evidence, as I have said, in history, and the nature of this world, and in the Old Testament, that if there is a God responsible for, or governing, the world in any significant degree, then He is evil. Have you any evidence to counter that, and a few isolated 'miracles' in no way contradict that, they in fact reinforce the idea that He really doesn't care. Or do you not necessarily believe in a 'good' God?

be it that evil without a basis or a source for understanding is subjective, sure, this God could be evil by perspective, depends on what end of the stick you're on.

This goes back to being allowed free will and to what magnitude freedom of choice would have to be taken from everyone to get rid of all alleged evil from every perspective. The bigger question in this case would be would there really be any freedom left? Likely not. Instead we'd be mindless drones who are puppeted by... a legitimately evil God, evil for not letting us make our own choices and making us be and do what He wants and not what we want. Thus even with all freedom taken away, evil still prevails subjectively. Ah, but we can't even think for ourselves, so regardless of how evil we would want to think he is for not allowing us to be anything more than puppets, he would only allow us to think of Him as the most upright and praiseworthy God ever.

I would love to hear what kind of evidence you'd provide to get rid of all evil as subjective as it is in the world today. e.g. radical Muslims don't see 9/11 as evil, but as the riteous hand of God. Americans find that as one of the most evil days in history. Do you really believe your understanding of evil and the source of it is not subjective in your statement above?

To answer your question, i believe God is good... but is that subjective or rational? How would you like to approach this matter?

BobSpence1 wrote:

A few scientists see a form of reverse ( not so much 'downward' ) causation in some interpretations of the observer 'paradox' in Quantum Theory, but there are experiments that have clearly shown that 'Quantum Collapse of the Wave Function' does NOT depend on a conscious observer, just a strong interaction with the rest of reality.

but the interaction is still necessary. The particle experiment seemed to suggest that it was dependent on a conscious observer. Do they contradict each other?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Demons are among the older ideas, like the idea of 'spirits' inhabiting various aspects of nature, that came before any tendency for those ideas to coalesce into the idea of more dominant or unified 'Great Spirit' and then into a single God (who somehow is still three parts ?? ).

cooperative hierarchy really. Three parts suggests they share the same being, but are separate persons, kind of like one person being possessed by several demons at once.

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are they? Ultimately just figments of human imagination, just like your God, and the angels.

could be, but then why such unified imaginations of the spiritual world? What justification is there if in fact it does not exist? This is found to include disconnected or isolated people groups not tainted by western civilization. (Perspectives, a Christian world view)

BobSpence1 wrote:

The bottom line is that no concept of God is any longer useful as an explanation for anything - instead it is a hypothesis that lacks an explanation for itself. It is no explanation at all to 'explain' any mystery by a bigger one.

It's funny how most resort back to God needing to exist only to be an explanation for something, as if that would be the only reason why a metaphysical god would exist. Why does something or someone have to exist to explain something, can't something just be?

It seems that many non-believing groups claim believers in God accept the reality of God only to centralize the purpose of human existence to themselves, yet the perspective that things only exist to give humans explanation of their surroundings suggests the same centralized purpose. Do you really believe everything exists to explain to us our surroundings? Are we really that significant in this universe?

Per what you said, You seem to be falling into the very reasoning you oppose. Otherwise, it's poor justification to say that "God is no longer useful as an explanation for anything."

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

The Islamic position on Jesus follows much more closely to the first and even second century CE position on Jesus -- great teacher, not a Jewish-type prophet (I can explain if anyone cares), definitely not divine.

It wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Jesus was firmly placed into some co-divine relationship with the Abrahamic god (and I don't use "G-d" here because G-d has no parts, no partners, no alternate personalities, etc).

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

"Ah, but why gods? There is a simple explanation, but why not just make up a superman character instead?"

Because gods suggest an answer to questions we have no answer for. Supermen just make good stories (sometimes). They don't suggest an answer.

"Lot's of words. You claim the only support for gods from followers is belief. yet if you have nothing to base belief on, you have nothing to believe in, so in fact, belief has nothing even to do with why we believe, only that we accept what we believe."

Theists do have basis for belief. Indoctrination coupled with a lack of education. That doesn't give any validity to their beliefs. Quite the opposite.

Being "so" bad at "listening" isn't an argument. Where was the voice of god when I was a child? I looked and listened for it constantly, in an ever futile attempt to understand the beliefs of many of my peers.

Your god, NO god, ever came to me, despite a desperate search by an innocent child to find one. Or even something like one. But nothing was there.

Theists do have basis for belief. Indoctrination coupled with a lack of education. That doesn't give any validity to their beliefs. Quite the opposite.

A lack of education about =what=?

I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis.

If I were looking for the impact of education on ones belief in G-d, I'd look there. You might also consider the advances that were made by my cousins the Arabs while the pink skinned European world was living in straw huts and dying from disease.

Maybe "lack of education" is a "Three-In-One Deity Special!" problem and not so much a problem with pure monotheists.

Just saying.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis.

None of them were awarded a Nobel Prize for providing any evidence for a supernatural.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Just saying.

That's a strawman. He never said that theists couldn't get an education, or be intelligent.

Children are indoctrinated in churches. Churches do not teach science from a holy book. They teach misinformation about science at best, because science gives evidence that everything we see can have a myriad of possible natural 'causes'.

The entire argument for the 'supernatural' is ad hoc and argument from ignorance.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

the commonalities in various belief systems are easily to be expected because we share common brain structures, common basic psychology, and ideas get passed on between cultures, even way back. There is DNA evidence of contact in very ancient times between geographically separated cultures.

We all experience/observe the same Sun, Moon and stars, the same categories of flora and fauna.

All cultures that became in any way advanced had agriculture, experienced the seasons, the cycles of growth, all of which contributed to the narrative myths of the culture.

In the Middle East and Central Asia region, the common threads seem to have been passed from culture to culture. The Sumerians lasted 1000's of years, and seem to have had many of the memes that we think of as distinctive to Christianity, are about the earliest we can identify as a distinct culture.

"I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis."

You do realise that not only do LOTS of jews not identify with theism AT ALL, but that the jews are significantly outnumbered by competitors? And that an exception to a standard doesn't disprove the standard is a standard?
Oh, and how many of those nobel winners were orthodox jews, by the way?

You want to defeat my argument, then prove that most theists are scientifically literate. Don't play semantics and bother with exceptions to the rule unless the exceptions are the rule. Good luck.

the commonalities in various belief systems are easily to be expected because we share common brain structures, common basic psychology, and ideas get passed on between cultures, even way back. There is DNA evidence of contact in very ancient times between geographically separated cultures.

We all experience/observe the same Sun, Moon and stars, the same categories of flora and fauna.

All cultures that became in any way advanced had agriculture, experienced the seasons, the cycles of growth, all of which contributed to the narrative myths of the culture.

In the Middle East and Central Asia region, the common threads seem to have been passed from culture to culture. The Sumerians lasted 1000's of years, and seem to have had many of the memes that we think of as distinctive to Christianity, are about the earliest we can identify as a distinct culture.

There is no mystery here.

I'm glad you can see that. Biblically speaking, we'd have all come from a common ancestor... scientifically speaking... this has been supported... now the common ancestor science says could have been more of a small community, but none the less, the Bible and science agree on common ancestry and geographical location of origin... namely north Eastern Africa. Therefore, it is understood by Christians that the belief was carried over from group to group through common ground and when they split into different migration patterns, they took their own version of the stories with them. " The Next Christiandom" goes through the history of religions for a bit and shows how most major religions of the world can be traced back to a Jewish or Christian background using this methodology. \

So back to the point, either way you look at it, I guess it can be explained as far as how we'd have common stories... so what made these particular focuses so much more convincing than the rest? So much so that most people groups around the world have at least a history of that understanding if not still adhere to it.

"A lack of education about =what=?" The sciences. "I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis." You do realise that not only do LOTS of jews not identify with theism AT ALL, but that the jews are significantly outnumbered by competitors? And that an exception to a standard doesn't disprove the standard is a standard? Oh, and how many of those nobel winners were orthodox jews, by the way? You want to defeat my argument, then prove that most theists are scientifically literate. Don't play semantics and bother with exceptions to the rule unless the exceptions are the rule. Good luck.

c'mon dude, prove that most non-believers are scientifically literate. Statistics show most aren't on both sides. It's hardly reason to accept or deny God. The point is, there are many theists that are well educated in the sciences just as with non-believers. If you want names, I'm sure both of us could provide you with some... the question is how long does the list have to be before you consider it reasoning to persue the opposing perspective? or does the statistical percentage just have to outweigh non-believing scientists. Is it a numbers game to you?

c'mon dude, prove that most non-believers are scientifically literate. Statistics show most aren't on both sides.

redneF already covered this, so I'm only posting to confirm his accurate portrayal of my argument. That response was tailor-made for Furry's response and specifically tied to her religion, and wasn't an extension of our conversation.

the commonalities in various belief systems are easily to be expected because we share common brain structures, common basic psychology, and ideas get passed on between cultures, even way back. There is DNA evidence of contact in very ancient times between geographically separated cultures.

We all experience/observe the same Sun, Moon and stars, the same categories of flora and fauna.

All cultures that became in any way advanced had agriculture, experienced the seasons, the cycles of growth, all of which contributed to the narrative myths of the culture.

In the Middle East and Central Asia region, the common threads seem to have been passed from culture to culture. The Sumerians lasted 1000's of years, and seem to have had many of the memes that we think of as distinctive to Christianity, are about the earliest we can identify as a distinct culture.

There is no mystery here.

I'm glad you can see that. Biblically speaking, we'd have all come from a common ancestor... scientifically speaking... this has been supported... now the common ancestor science says could have been more of a small community, but none the less, the Bible and science agree on common ancestry and geographical location of origin... namely north Eastern Africa.

Therefore, it is understood by Christians that the belief was carried over from group to group through common ground and when they split into different migration patterns, they took their own version of the stories with them. " The Next Christiandom" goes through the history of religions for a bit and shows how most major religions of the world can be traced back to a Jewish or Christian background using this methodology.

So back to the point, either way you look at it, I guess it can be explained as far as how we'd have common stories... so what made these particular focuses so much more convincing than the rest? So much so that most people groups around the world have at least a history of that understanding if not still adhere to it.

Science does NOT say we all came from a single pair of ancestors.

Wikipedia wrote:

In genetics, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in the group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.

.........

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

........

It is estimated that the MRCA lived between 5,000 to 2,000 years ago.

Our ancestry extends back 100s of thousands to a million years or so, as identifiably 'human' to some extent.

The Sumerian civilization predated the emergence of the Jewish tribe from Canaan. It emerged about 4000 BCE.

There were at least three major civilizations that appear to have emerged independently in the region: Egypt, the Indus Valley (India), and the Tigris-Euphrates region (Mesopotamia).

Some common stories can be explained by occasional contacts between the various groups.

To expand on that, the MRCA is determined by an unbroken family line. It's very likely that descendants of the other people of the time of the MRCA do exist, they just don't have an unbroken family line. Female mitochondria are transferred only to female offspring. And male y chromosomes are transferred only to male offspring. So if a female descendant of mitochondrial eve had kids with a descendant of anyone else at the time, and all the surviving children of that relationship were female, then the fathers y chromosome is lost and his lineage is broken. Leaving only the female family line to continue.

The MRCA of humanity as a whole is less intuitively grasped, and I'd recommend reading a few different articles to understand it. The one Bob used is a good starting point. Links to any terms you don't know should be available within.

Have you become completely delusional? I think it’s time you retired from prophetess status. You’ve already abandoned any pretense at being a loyal American. Your entry reads like something one would expect from George McGovern or Jimmy Carter. It is times like these when I miss great men like George McCarthy, who would fling your sorry butt into jail after that post.

Don’t you understand that the Iranian war was essential to protect our national security? Saddam bin Laden (or was it Osama Hussein? oh well, toe-mae-toe; toe-mah-toe) destroyed the World Trade Center, thereby killing thousands of Americans and humiliating us as a nation. Now, I know what you’re going to say. One was a mortal enemy of the other, and al Qaeda wasn’t even allowed in Iraq, Iran or whatever it is. So, the war had nothing to do with al Qaeda. But since our military action has destabilized Iraq, al Qaeda now has a stronghold and safe haven there that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. This makes it even more important that we stay in Iraq, so that we can at least combat the increased influence we gave the terrorists.

I know it gets confusing, but this much is simple: they’re all Muslim, pledged to destroy us, the “infidels.” We would declare war on all of them, but we can’t afford the disruption to oil supplies. And yes, Debbie, oil is critical to our economy and thus something our soldiers should have to die over.

As for Korea and Vietnam, it was essential that we take a stand against communists who don’t believe in God. And even though those wars weren’t particularly successful, we cold hardly cower away from tthe challenge.

It is important that we are prepared to wage war against a nation that hasn’t even attacked us yet, as Godly George W. Bush did in one of those “Ira” countries. America shouldn’t just be a defensive nation. We must be a nation on the offense — one who isn’t afraid to wage a war of aggression. We can’t have the world thinking we’re a bunch of cowards.

In any event, it’s a lot easier to declare war now, since we have a volunteer military. In the days of the draft, substantive young men — men who were going to make something of their lives — were forced to serve alongside the downtrodden and wade through swamps. With the exclusively volunteer military, we ensure that the vast majority of those risking their lives are poor minorities who really can’t afford anything else. If they had worked harder in school or had some marketable talent, they wouldn’t have to join the military. They know what they’re getting themselves into, and if they die because they couldn’t make ends meet otherwise, they should rest assured that good Christian Americans will be praying for them next Memorial Day. I admire what they’re doing. That doesn’t mean I want my own children doing the same.

Not to be snide, but if you read my post more carefully, you'll see why I agree with you here.

BobSpence wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

In genetics, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in the group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.

.........

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

........

It is estimated that the MRCA lived between 5,000 to 2,000 years ago.

MRCA specifically does not imply... does not mean that it didn't happen that way.

there was a geneaology study done investigating origins. They took several different sample groups with different cultural backgrounds and traced them back as far as they could. They were then subcategorized by migration units, all groups started in a place of origin. I don't remember the specific name of the study.

Not to be snide, but if you read my post more carefully, you'll see why I agree with you here.

A common ancestor is always one individual, and has not that much to do with our ancestry as a group.

How far back we can trace a common ancestor is affected by bottlenecks in population, amount of mixing between different groups, and so on.

Nothing to do with anything in the Bible.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

In genetics, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in the group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.

.........

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

........

It is estimated that the MRCA lived between 5,000 to 2,000 years ago.

MRCA specifically does not imply... does not mean that it didn't happen that way.

there was a geneaology study done investigating origins. They took several different sample groups with different cultural backgrounds and traced them back as far as they could. They were then subcategorized by migration units, all groups started in a place of origin. I don't remember the specific name of the study.

Again not really relevant.

And BTW, the Bible suggests the origin was somewhere in the Middle East, NOT Africa, while Science points to central Africa, especially Kenya.

So, as usual, the Bible is inaccurate about just about everything. It is not a reliable source of anything much.

The origin of the Hebrew , which it translates to "delight", may derive from the Sumerian term EDIN. The Sumerian term means steppe, plain, desert or wilderness,[5] so the connection between the words may be coincidental. This word is known to have been used by the Sumerians to refer to the arid lands west of the Euphrates. Alan Millard has put forward a case for the name deriving from the Semitic stem dn, meaning "abundant, lush".

Not to be snide, but if you read my post more carefully, you'll see why I agree with you here.

BobSpence wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

In genetics, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in the group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.

.........

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

........

It is estimated that the MRCA lived between 5,000 to 2,000 years ago.

MRCA specifically does not imply... does not mean that it didn't happen that way.

there was a genealogy study done investigating origins. They took several different sample groups with different cultural backgrounds and traced them back as far as they could. They were then subcategorized by migration units, all groups started in a place of origin. I don't remember the specific name of the study.

The science of the physical and/or material isn't a matter of Christianity. Christianity comes more under the science of the mind if there's a science that applies at all. Christianity deals with being a particular kind of person. It is concerned with spiritual matters rather then material constructions or origins of species. The sciences of material is of it's realm, and Christianity deals with the spiritual realm, that is-the makeup of one's person.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

The origin of the Hebrew , which it translates to "delight", may derive from the Sumerian term EDIN. The Sumerian term means steppe, plain, desert or wilderness,[5] so the connection between the words may be coincidental. This word is known to have been used by the Sumerians to refer to the arid lands west of the Euphrates. Alan Millard has put forward a case for the name deriving from the Semitic stem dn, meaning "abundant, lush".

Now where do you think it implies Africa?

There is reference to particular rivers flowing through the garden in Genesis... Geographically speaking, it is understood that this was so long ago that the location of the rivers are likely not the same as they are today, not to say they were literally in what would be considered Africa today, but the general location is agreed upon.

I specified that the Bible and science agreed... i named North Eastern Africa, but I should have clarified that I did not intend to mean that the Bible stated that. It's one of a few different theories based on the river and land references and taking into account geological phenomena and weather patterns over the years. You however did claim outright that the Bible and science do not agree on these fronts, yet from the text itself be it that 2 of the 4 reference rivers locations are not known today, it is impossible to know an exact geographical location making your statement based more on personal opinion rather than evidence. Even so, though science has traced the origins of man to North Eastern Africa, it is again not definitive as far as Geographical location due to the major geological changes that have happened through the years and possible previous generations yet to be found. Too many unknowns for a definite answer.

Point and case, you cannot claim that science and the Bible don't agree on these fronts. If anything, the Bible first referenced to that section of the world for the origins of man, science more recently has leaned in that direction as the origin. It looks to me as if science further confirmed Biblical claims here.

*edit*

After reading through, I figured I should add that I can see where you get your understanding from and why you might conclude as you do so I'm not doubting your research. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but what it comes down to is neither of us really can claim a specific geographical location of the Garden of Eden and the origin of man using either the Bible or science. We can see that both are pointing to a fairly specific location in the world. Even if we took the extreme to say that the origin of man taking into consideration all Biblical possibilities as well as all scientific possibilities at this point, we could narrow it down to a maximum of 5000 square miles that it could fall into... Considering that there is somewhere around 60000000000 square miles of dry land in the world, that's a very specific focus that statistically speaking, is generally in agreement.

The science of the physical and/or material isn't a matter of Christianity. Christianity comes more under the science of the mind if there's a science that applies at all. Christianity deals with being a particular kind of person. It is concerned with spiritual matters rather then material constructions or origins of species. The sciences of material is of it's realm, and Christianity deals with the spiritual realm, that is-the makeup of one's person.

I agree with you... the debate however isn't so much about the science of Christianity, rather whether science agrees or disagrees with the Bible... So many have tried to tell me that science is disproving scripture and yet none have been able to show me how. I believe if there is any scientific reference to any particular thing in the Bible (which is hard enough to find) then they agree, but if anything there is nothing to reference to that can show how they disagree.

Science has disproven adam & eve as well as a young earth and a 7 day creation. Likely more than that, but I avoid familiarising myself with fiction that claims to be fact.
The only christian defence to this that I've encountered is to claim metaphor. But the bible never specifies that certain passages are literal while others are metaphorical. So if the bible is to be interpreted metaphorically, then it must be in its entirety. Which reduces it to an artifact of ancient culture, not a book of truth and wisdom of ages. Even if truth and wisdom can be found within, so can lies and ignorance.

The science of the physical and/or material isn't a matter of Christianity. Christianity comes more under the science of the mind if there's a science that applies at all. Christianity deals with being a particular kind of person. It is concerned with spiritual matters rather then material constructions or origins of species. The sciences of material is of it's realm, and Christianity deals with the spiritual realm, that is-the makeup of one's person.

I agree with you... the debate however isn't so much about the science of Christianity, rather whether science agrees or disagrees with the Bible... So many have tried to tell me that science is disproving scripture and yet none have been able to show me how. I believe if there is any scientific reference to any particular thing in the Bible (which is hard enough to find) then they agree, but if anything there is nothing to reference to that can show how they disagree.

Only apply to the material/physical parts of the bible. One has to discern which applies on any given item.. There are only two things that exist in the universe, material and spiritual. Each of these is divides into it's components. The material (which formed first)) is divided into all of it's many things. The spiritual is divided in to all of it's things. There-fore then, everything in the bible has to be interpreted and translated from one of these two. A thing must be relegated to the material, or the spiritual categories, there is nothing else to consider. The rule of thumb we were led to develop was- if it doesn't conform to material absolutes (science), to interpret it as a spiritual case. We were and still are right. Biblical Creation does not conform, there-fore one needs to look to a spiritual interpretation. IE- There is sunlight in the first day, but the sun is created in the fourth. In material science that can't work. An Atheist would rightly put this in the irrational category, and in their understanding of things they would be right. Being nonbelievers in spiritual constructions they would dismiss biblical creation as hocky . It's understandable that they would deem the Creation a fraud. But, no reason in trying to kick their guts out. They are not deceived in this case, they are merely minus information. Creation in the bible is a spiritual construction. Light in the first day is enlightenment, waters are mental concepts-the flowing of thoughts and ideas. Earth is soul. The thing we get a kick out of and make us happy or if we ascend above the animal puts us in Heaven (higher state). some folks use drugs for that. Biblical creation is the makeup of our persons. The ancient peoples didn't have words for mental and spiritual things so they attached material items. You'll notice the fowls of the air come out of the water, that would imply evolution but not so. They are things of ones higher state of being. There are waters above and below the firmament. A state of mind of humane below , and one of the inhumane where one puts himself above others, the animal concepts.

The creeping thing---catlike, a predator, an animal item of ones nature. Ok, you should be able to understand this. Material sciences are conclusive that the planet has been here far longer then 7000 years. In matters of the bible there's something else going on. Don't be fooled by the history of the Hebrews. Their history is no different than any other. All civilizations are the same. What the Hebrews did---so did everyone else. Moses was not a Christian. Now you have a new start. No, the Pope is not a Christian. He holds himself to be above others and is materialistic. Christians do not strive above others and seek no positions of greatness and are moderate in material things. He is about to get his drawers blown off. What happens to the Pope will happen to all of greatness no matter from what source greatness is derived.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

I'd like to express why Christians have qualms about the whole issue of the Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse (I believe it was in Florida, but I can be wrong...somewhere in the South).

Jesus Christ did come to fulfill the law of the OT, but he also did not come to forsake it nor to change it. Christ is the atoning sacrifice to those under the New Covenant. We are not under the old law, but the ten commandments were given to us for good reason. If one was a theist, the ten commandments are very basic and important as moral law (esp. Christianity's Triune God). The meaning of "no longer being under the old law" is that we are no longer under the old animal sacrificing laws. Christ is the final and true substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Faith in him will bring about salvation and the power of the Holy Spirit, which will continue to work and lead the believer through careful interpretation of the Bible. I hope that clears up the issue of the old law and the new law.

I believe that Christians should definitely understand the meaning of removing the ten commandments. This is due to freedom of religion i believe. So, I do not believe the US constitution was infringed upon. However, removing these laws is evidence of the fallenness of mankind. I don't think that Muslims would object to the ten commandments nor the Jews nor other theistic religions or deistic religions. There is some moral law out there that should be followed. Atheists also should believe that murder, bearing false witness, coveting another man's wife, etc. are all things that should be avoided.

In the end, CHristians know and believe that sin is prevalent and will always be while on earth and in this life. However, it is Christ's sacrifice and faith in God that gives us eternal life.

I'd like to express why Christians have qualms about the whole issue of the Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse (I believe it was in Florida, but I can be wrong...somewhere in the South).

Jesus Christ did come to fulfill the law of the OT, but he also did not come to forsake it nor to change it. Christ is the atoning sacrifice to those under the New Covenant. We are not under the old law, but the ten commandments were given to us for good reason. If one was a theist, the ten commandments are very basic and important as moral law (esp. Christianity's Triune God). The meaning of "no longer being under the old law" is that we are no longer under the old animal sacrificing laws. Christ is the final and true substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Faith in him will bring about salvation and the power of the Holy Spirit, which will continue to work and lead the believer through careful interpretation of the Bible. I hope that clears up the issue of the old law and the new law.

I believe that Christians should definitely understand the meaning of removing the ten commandments. This is due to freedom of religion i believe. So, I do not believe the US constitution was infringed upon. However, removing these laws is evidence of the fallenness of mankind. I don't think that Muslims would object to the ten commandments nor the Jews nor other theistic religions or deistic religions. There is some moral law out there that should be followed. Atheists also should believe that murder, bearing false witness, coveting another man's wife, etc. are all things that should be avoided.

In the end, CHristians know and believe that sin is prevalent and will always be while on earth and in this life. However, it is Christ's sacrifice and faith in God that gives us eternal life.

If you have any questions please respond.

All for the glory and honor and praise of the Triune God,

J.N.

Which version of the Ten Commandments do you advocate ? The version found in Exodus 20:1-17 or the different version found in Exodus 34:14-26 ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

are similar to other laws like that of the Egyptians etal. They're not unique just with the Israelites. The only difference is they are listed together like the law codes of Hammurabi. Egyptian commandments were scattered through out the law code. But it's all basically the same thing. Just as today, we don't find a litany of morals projected from government. One man's morals is another man's sin, or the other way around. If the US had a list of morals and immorals the gov would come to a stop. As long as the gov doesn't compile a list no one knows for sure what is or isn't. That way everyone can be immoral and not be questioned by the morals of everyone else. The 10 are civil law/moral codes not Christian. Christians are supposed to be a people that don't require such laws. If one claims to be Christian and needs the 10--he's not a Christian. The 3rd rail of government righteousness is morals. They're better off not touching it

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

Science has disproven adam & eve as well as a young earth and a 7 day creation. Likely more than that, but I avoid familiarising myself with fiction that claims to be fact. The only christian defence to this that I've encountered is to claim metaphor. But the bible never specifies that certain passages are literal while others are metaphorical. So if the bible is to be interpreted metaphorically, then it must be in its entirety. Which reduces it to an artifact of ancient culture, not a book of truth and wisdom of ages. Even if truth and wisdom can be found within, so can lies and ignorance.

I have yet to see the Adam and Eve science research... though the 7 day creation (not metaphorical) but if you look in the Hebrew language, the reference to "day" is literally a period of time and not necessarily a day as we would determine it. e.g. not specifically a 24 hour period... there is nothing to say how long or short those "days" are... could be literally 24 hours, but it also could be 24,000,000 years... I'm partial to accept the scientific understanding that Earth was not created literally in 6 twenty four hour periods. The literal and metaphorical are contextually clear. This would require a study of the context and languages. There are some parts that are hard to determine, but then again, those parts aren't detrimental to the Christian faith and are typically only telling a story for either a lesson or to make a point.

to understand ancient people and their cultures. One can say the Navajo nations could be identified by maze, but the squash and beans have to be looked at too. Over time other evidence comes into view. If the earth isn't older then 7000 years then man had to be formed in that period of time. But, cometh forth the Ice Man. (Google'em)In material science it is known that he/it was here 10000 years ago. He was found in the Italian Alps or near. BUT, lets say he/it is 6000 years old and creation in it's accepted interpretation is used. What was he doing in the Apls<---Alps too. If all peoples where in the area of biblical creation around the "garden of Eden" what was this fella doing in that area. I would be interested in the results of his DNA track. It would say where this man originated. His material assets show nothing of middle eastern construction. If Biblical creation is true who is this guy. There's no denying that the fella was alive and well at some time.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

Science has disproven adam & eve as well as a young earth and a 7 day creation. Likely more than that, but I avoid familiarising myself with fiction that claims to be fact. The only christian defence to this that I've encountered is to claim metaphor. But the bible never specifies that certain passages are literal while others are metaphorical. So if the bible is to be interpreted metaphorically, then it must be in its entirety. Which reduces it to an artifact of ancient culture, not a book of truth and wisdom of ages. Even if truth and wisdom can be found within, so can lies and ignorance.

I have yet to see the Adam and Eve science research... though the 7 day creation (not metaphorical) but if you look in the Hebrew language, the reference to "day" is literally a period of time and not necessarily a day as we would determine it. e.g. not specifically a 24 hour period... there is nothing to say how long or short those "days" are... could be literally 24 hours, but it also could be 24,000,000 years... I'm partial to accept the scientific understanding that Earth was not created literally in 6 twenty four hour periods. The literal and metaphorical are contextually clear. This would require a study of the context and languages. There are some parts that are hard to determine, but then again, those parts aren't detrimental to the Christian faith and are typically only telling a story for either a lesson or to make a point.

Note that at each stage, Genesis says "And the evening and the morning were the [first/second/...] day". The reference to evening and morning makes it more than just a "period of time".

It also gets the order wrong, in that the stars came first, then the Sun, then the Moon, then the Land (no water), then the Waters, then ocean life, then land plants, then land animals, then birds.

Genesis has the waters, then light, then dry land, then land plants, then stars, then the Sun and Moon, then Ocean life and birds, then land animals.

Not very accurate, but entirely reasonable as something imagined by pre-scientific people. Why would a God feed people a fable that was such a poor correspondence to the truth?

The lesson of the Garden of Eden is that one must always obey the arbitrary commands of authority figures, thus endorsing every dictator figure in history, at least to that extent, and that it is OK to punish people for the crimes of their ancestors, thus endorsing every ongoing ethnic war where the frequent justification is what the grandfathers of one side did to the other side.

So, the story is bad information about how the world formed, and bad 'moral' lessons.

to understand ancient people and their cultures. One can say the Navajo nations could be identified by maze, but the squash and beans have to be looked at too. Over time other evidence comes into view. If the earth isn't older then 7000 years then man had to be formed in that period of time. But, cometh forth the Ice Man. (Google'em)In material science it is known that he/it was here 10000 years ago. He was found in the Italian Alps or near. BUT, lets say he/it is 6000 years old and creation in it's accepted interpretation is used. What was he doing in the Apls<---Alps too. If all peoples where in the area of biblical creation around the "garden of Eden" what was this fella doing in that area. I would be interested in the results of his DNA track. It would say where this man originated. His material assets show nothing of middle eastern construction. If Biblical creation is true who is this guy. There's no denying that the fella was alive and well at some time.

He was alive 5500 years ago. What happened to the 10000? It's irritating how things get changed around. May be new info was found.If I'm noit mistaken -when I fisrt knew about this it was 10000.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

to understand ancient people and their cultures. One can say the Navajo nations could be identified by maze, but the squash and beans have to be looked at too. Over time other evidence comes into view. If the earth isn't older then 7000 years then man had to be formed in that period of time. But, cometh forth the Ice Man. (Google'em)In material science it is known that he/it was here 10000 years ago. He was found in the Italian Alps or near. BUT, lets say he/it is 6000 years old and creation in it's accepted interpretation is used. What was he doing in the Apls<---Alps too. If all peoples where in the area of biblical creation around the "garden of Eden" what was this fella doing in that area. I would be interested in the results of his DNA track. It would say where this man originated. His material assets show nothing of middle eastern construction. If Biblical creation is true who is this guy. There's no denying that the fella was alive and well at some time.

A study was done checking the genealogy of several different groups of people from different nationalities. Though they were from all over the world, all their genealogies tracked back to a central location in an approximate area of North Eastern Africa. This man would have a DNA track that likely would lead back to Africa. this supports the idea of the garden of Eden. It is not known exactly where it started, but it is known that it was near middle east rivers. There are 4 rivers referenced and only 2 are known. It would likely then with the known rivers place it somewhere in the Middle East, but then again, there are theories due to the unknown rivers that it could be in a section of Africa. I've estimated taking into consideration Theological theories as well as science theories to the origin of man that there is roughly a 5000 square mile radius for the possibility of the beginning of man. This being less than 1% of the whole world's dry land coverage, I'd say science supports scriptural claims here.

Again, i take on the idea that science clarifies that a day as mentioned in the English Bible isn't literally a 24 hour period. Hebrew supports this notion and does not suggest a specific 24 hour period

Note that at each stage, Genesis says "And the evening and the morning were the [first/second/...] day". The reference to evening and morning makes it more than just a "period of time".

yes it does... but again, how long ago was this? What was a day like during that time? Did the Earth always spin at the exact same speed or did it speed up at a certain point then slow down as it is now? Science supports the idea that the day on Earth is not consistent. Currently, we are aware that the spin is slowing down. Way back when... creation... is it 6000 years? likely not, 6,000,000 years? 6,000,000,000 years? As far as we know, this might have been reference to before Earth was even in orbit with our sun... which would open a much greater possibility that a day does not reference specifically a 24 hour period..

I'd also have to look at the Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason why they say Hebrew does not imply a day as we understand it beyond what I just explained.

One more thing we have to keep in mind is that whoever wrote Genesis would not have an understanding of this creation story as we would today. Therefore, even if the Hebrew was talking about a literal day, they'd have to be referencing only to what they understand. As far as even we know, a period of time that has light then darkness in only one wave is considered a day. Therefore it is completely reasonable to consider that the author could reference to a specific day even if it wasn't literally a day. All we know is that the author was given information that he knew he needed to write down in such a way that others would understand it.

BobSpence wrote:

It also gets the order wrong, in that the stars came first, then the Sun, then the Moon, then the Land (no water), then the Waters, then ocean life, then land plants, then land animals, then birds.

Genesis has the waters, then light, then dry land, then land plants, then stars, then the Sun and Moon, then Ocean life and birds, then land animals.

didn't you and I already have a conversation about this? or was this someone else? I know I had confronted this already

BobSpence wrote:

Not very accurate, but entirely reasonable as something imagined by pre-scientific people. Why would a God feed people a fable that was such a poor correspondence to the truth?

If God did feed it to the people, then why would you automatically assume it was fable? It is generally understood God knows all and therefore it would be likely that we were mistaken. if in fact God did create everything then regardless of how we think it should have been done, he could have done it in any way he wanted to.

Again assuming the Earth wasn't in orbit yet, through the chaos of the universe, it is possible that the Earth was floating through a point where there were no visible stars, then they were seen.

Too many assumptions to fully conclude truth or fable strictly by science on this story.

BobSpence wrote:

The lesson of the Garden of Eden is that one must always obey the arbitrary commands of authority figures, thus endorsing every dictator figure in history, at least to that extent, and that it is OK to punish people for the crimes of their ancestors, thus endorsing every ongoing ethnic war where the frequent justification is what the grandfathers of one side did to the other side.

So, the story is bad information about how the world formed, and bad 'moral' lessons.

By opinion of course.. reading carefully, the decision was never left up to the people to decide.. that doesn't mean that people didn't do something so drastic on their own accord, but it does mean that such a decision should have been run by God first.

I love how blaming people for their stupidity is an excuse for discrediting the Bible. This is where it becomes subjective due to understanding. If you want to go there, we would need to sit down and analyze every alleged battle ordained by God and the possible reasons behind them and why they might have gone onto future generations. I believe PJTS and I have covered that breifly in our historical walkthrough already.

BobSpence wrote:

So you can shove it up your ....

psychologically speaking, this proves that your conclusion was emotion based and not fact based... therefore it is completely subjective and not founded on research and holds no credit to your case.

You're not wanting to debate about absolute moral laws or duties existing or being immaterial and transcendent, or that 'good and evil' are written on our hearts, are you?

I'd love that debate.

Wanna go?

Just let me know, and we can start another thread about it.

So you want to debate why it is necessary to avoid such things as killing others, coveting others wives, etc. Really... I mean do you honestly not understand why one should avoid those things anyway? I dont' think you need to start a debate with me... just ask most of your other Atheist friends on here.. I have a feeling they could asnwer that for you.

Besides, last time we tried a debate that you were so determined to try, you ran from it... BOTH TIMES we tried to start it. I'm not confident it'd be worth trying again... this woudl be the third time I would give you a chance to discuss something.... why should I believe you're going to stick with it this time? what's different about this one?

to understand ancient people and their cultures. One can say the Navajo nations could be identified by maze, but the squash and beans have to be looked at too. Over time other evidence comes into view. If the earth isn't older then 7000 years then man had to be formed in that period of time. But, cometh forth the Ice Man. (Google'em)In material science it is known that he/it was here 10000 years ago. He was found in the Italian Alps or near. BUT, lets say he/it is 6000 years old and creation in it's accepted interpretation is used. What was he doing in the Apls<---Alps too. If all peoples where in the area of biblical creation around the "garden of Eden" what was this fella doing in that area. I would be interested in the results of his DNA track. It would say where this man originated. His material assets show nothing of middle eastern construction. If Biblical creation is true who is this guy. There's no denying that the fella was alive and well at some time.

A study was done checking the genealogy of several different groups of people from different nationalities. Though they were from all over the world, all their genealogies tracked back to a central location in an approximate area of North Eastern Africa. This man would have a DNA track that likely would lead back to Africa. this supports the idea of the garden of Eden. It is not known exactly where it started, but it is known that it was near middle east rivers. There are 4 rivers referenced and only 2 are known. It would likely then with the known rivers place it somewhere in the Middle East, but then again, there are theories due to the unknown rivers that it could be in a section of Africa. I've estimated taking into consideration Theological theories as well as science theories to the origin of man that there is roughly a 5000 square mile radius for the possibility of the beginning of man. This being less than 1% of the whole world's dry land coverage, I'd say science supports scriptural claims here.

Again, i take on the idea that science clarifies that a day as mentioned in the English Bible isn't literally a 24 hour period. Hebrew supports this notion and does not suggest a specific 24 hour period

There is a documentary done on this. There was a DNA guy that started with DNA markers from the present African bushman tribes. The markers don't change. No matter where he went on the globe he found all on the planet today carry those same markers that cannot be changed. Even the tribe inhabiting the region of the Bering Sea have them. It is evident and very clear that the origin of "people" was Africa. Christians are going to have to re-do their understandings on these things. We don't consider the bible to be wrong, we see the interpretations are faulty, in a lot of cases outright ridiculous. The Bible is a victim of what we call "Europeanism". Europeans expanded to a point of deciding for everyone all right and wrong---mostly wrong. We,ve concluded that Biblical creation is of a spiritual nature. Christians today have a lot of re-learning to do. IE-Adam was not an Israelite, the Hebrews are only one tribe of Adams decedents. Moses was not a Christian. The ten commandments are not a Christian document, and a proper Christian doesn't/shouldn't need them. The Ice Man has been found to be of European genetics which means someone has the bible wrong. And that's what we found, Europeans are not descendants of Adam. The descendants of Adam are Middle Eastern genetic lines. Adam is not a matter of genetics, but rather an "enlightened person" and that enlightenment is the basis of Christianity. In a review of Apostle input you will find they regard JC as "Adam the second".His genetics isn't what makes him Adam #2---it's his knowledge and mental makeup. Europeans descend from a different migration out of Africa. The Pope is history, as good as gone. If you think his past flat earth idea was bad, wait to see what's coming. He is not a Christian and we can prove it. Neither is Pat Robertson. You need to back up a bit and take another look at things. Christian things are Christian things, and material things are material things.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

yes it does... but again, how long ago was this? What was a day like during that time? Did the Earth always spin at the exact same speed or did it speed up at a certain point then slow down as it is now?

Your God could have easily included this information in the Bible.

caposkia wrote:

Science supports the idea that the day on Earth is not consistent. Currently, we are aware that the spin is slowing down.

How much is this variance ?

caposkia wrote:

Way back when... creation... is it 6000 years? likely not, 6,000,000 years? 6,000,000,000 years? As far as we know, this might have been reference to before Earth was even in orbit with our sun... which would open a much greater possibility that a day does not reference specifically a 24 hour period..

I'd also have to look at the Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason why they say Hebrew does not imply a day as we understand it beyond what I just explained.

Because the issue of semantics allows for the use of massive equivocation, so much so that even commonly used terms such as "day" begin to lose any real meaning.

caposkia wrote:

One more thing we have to keep in mind is that whoever wrote Genesis would not have an understanding of this creation story as we would today.

Perhaps, but God allegedly would have had complete understanding of his creation and could have easily directed the "author" to simply record what he is being told. The "author" need not comprehend God's explanation in order to transcribe it.

caposkia wrote:

Therefore, even if the Hebrew was talking about a literal day, they'd have to be referencing only to what they understand. As far as even we know, a period of time that has light then darkness in only one wave is considered a day. Therefore it is completely reasonable to consider that the author could reference to a specific day even if it wasn't literally a day. All we know is that the author was given information that he knew he needed to write down in such a way that others would understand it.

Again, this haphazard method of Divine communication can only lead one to believe that if God actually existed that he most certainly was not concerned with relaying the creation narrative in a way that inspires credibility and in "such a way that others would understand it it." The endless speculation that you are qualifying your statements with clearly indicates that even you do not "understand" in any definitive way. The best that you have offered so far is hopeful guessing.

caposkia wrote:

It also gets the order wrong, in that the stars came first, then the Sun, then the Moon, then the Land (no water), then the Waters, then ocean life, then land plants, then land animals, then birds.

Genesis has the waters, then light, then dry land, then land plants, then stars, then the Sun and Moon, then Ocean life and birds, then land animals.

The book of Genesis also has "the order wrong" when compared to other world religions that offer a different creation scenario. How do those discrepancies affect the possibility of them actually being true ?

caposkia wrote:

If God did feed it to the people, then why would you automatically assume it was fable?

Why would you assume that it was true ?

caposkia wrote:

It is generally understood God knows all and therefore it would be likely that we were mistaken. if in fact God did create everything then regardless of how we think it should have been done, he could have done it in any way he wanted to.

The same can be said regarding any alleged deity. The Abrahamic god lives in a very crowded neighborhood.

caposkia wrote:

Again assuming the Earth wasn't in orbit yet, through the chaos of the universe, it is possible that the Earth was floating through a point where there were no visible stars, then they were seen.

Too many assumptions to fully conclude truth or fable strictly by science on this story.

Again, supernatural assumptions to the rescue. In fact, the need for assumptions seems to be the biggest obstacle your God faces and he's somehow never been able to rid himself of their entangling effect.

caposkia wrote:

By opinion of course.. reading carefully, the decision was never left up to the people to decide.. that doesn't mean that people didn't do something so drastic on their own accord, but it does mean that such a decision should have been run by God first.

But of course.

caposkia wrote:

I love how blaming people for their stupidity is an excuse for discrediting the Bible.

Stupid people who created an equally stupid God. A stupid God who somehow is incapable of simply providing unambiguous, decisive answers. Seems to be a pattern.

caposkia wrote:

This is where it becomes subjective due to understanding. If you want to go there, we would need to sit down and analyze every alleged battle ordained by God and the possible reasons behind them and why they might have gone onto future generations. I believe PJTS and I have covered that breifly in our historical walkthrough already.

Don't bother itemizing God's angry outbursts, sounds extremely tedious. Besides I've about reached my quota for God and any further assumptions regarding why he does this or that.

caposkia wrote:

psychologically speaking, this proves that your conclusion was emotion based and not fact based... therefore it is completely subjective and not founded on research and holds no credit to your case.

Another assumption on your part ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

You're not wanting to debate about absolute moral laws or duties existing or being immaterial and transcendent, or that 'good and evil' are written on our hearts, are you?

I'd love that debate.

Wanna go?

Just let me know, and we can start another thread about it.

I mean do you honestly not understand why one should avoid those things anyway?

Well, that's not what we would be debating now, is it?

Do you misinterpret and mischaracterize everything intentionally? Is that what underpins your personal brand of sophistry?

Or do you really have reading comprehension problems?

I'm thinking it's the former.

caposkia wrote:

I dont' think you need to start a debate with me...

Then why didn't you just sit back, shutup and watch someone else attempt the mental gymnastics that always fail to argue the premise of objective moral duties actually being rooted in a god's nature.

Anytime I ever gave you the spotlight you've disappointed me with blather that wouldn't even win a high school level debate.

caposkia wrote:

...just ask most of your other Atheist friends on here.. I have a feeling they could asnwer that for you.

You'd have to point out to me which atheists on here, in particular, would agree with you that situational ethics are not what really exist, instead of 'absolute moral laws'.

caposkia wrote:

Besides, last time we tried a debate that you were so determined to try, you ran from it... BOTH TIMES we tried to start it.

lol...ya, I ran from you like I'd run away from Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron.

I walk away when the level of sophistry is such an insult to my intelligence that I feel that the next 'proof of god' that's around the corner is going to be a banana...

I guess it's never occurred to either you, William Lane Craig, or any other stupid Christian that if Hitler wrote a book titled "Jesus And I Are Still Tight After All" we'd all understand that stressing about 'judgment' is really stupid if you're willing to believe that some missing corpse they named Jesus isn't still deader than a doornail...

Besides, we can still hear a pin drop in your thread on the best reasons to believe in an Ambrahamic god, since you've been backed into a corner.

It's fucking amazing how easy it is to get you to shutup.

Just be willing to quietly listen...lmao

Why don't you just accept that you're an agnostic atheist and cafeteria Christian poseur?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Do you think that incest has no impact on genetic variation through eons? Sorry, but if all humanity stemmed from one family, there'd be a lot more defects in a larger portion of society than has been observed.

Quote:

this supports the idea of the garden of Eden.

Actually, it supports the theory of evolution. Which refutes the hypothesis of creation. If the garden of eden were true, we'd have found evidence in DNA by now, never minding archeology.

Also, as I recall, traces actually pointed to South Africa. Nowhere near the middle East.

Do you think that incest has no impact on genetic variation through eons? Sorry, but if all humanity stemmed from one family, there'd be a lot more defects in a larger portion of society than has been observed.

Quote:

this supports the idea of the garden of Eden.

Actually, it supports the theory of evolution. Which refutes the hypothesis of creation. If the garden of eden were true, we'd have found evidence in DNA by now, never minding archeology. Also, as I recall, traces actually pointed to South Africa. Nowhere near the middle East.

No one is ever going to find forensic evidence that Adam existed. As we see it, what makes Adam is an enlightenment of something. The Europeans did a #1 hack job on the whole book. All the church building, organ grinding, bell tinkling, smoke and water throwing didn't change anything. Today they added guitar strumming, drum beating, foot stomping and flashing light shows and not a one in the world is any better than 5500 years ago. Christianity is supposed to make different folks, didn't happen. I'm looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far haven't found anything. If I use htjihegbf no body's going to know what I'm referring to. But, material evidence of Adam will never be found. The Adamites were a very simple people and for a long time (probably) didn't have any different means then the Bushmen that remained in Africa. What made then different is how they thought and their social values,

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

There is a documentary done on this. There was a DNA guy that started with DNA markers from the present African bushman tribes. The markers don't change. No matter where he went on the globe he found all on the planet today carry those same markers that cannot be changed. Even the tribe inhabiting the region of the Bering Sea have them. It is evident and very clear that the origin of "people" was Africa. Christians are going to have to re-do their understandings on these things. We don't consider the bible to be wrong, we see the interpretations are faulty, in a lot of cases outright ridiculous. The Bible is a victim of what we call "Europeanism". Europeans expanded to a point of deciding for everyone all right and wrong---mostly wrong. We,ve concluded that Biblical creation is of a spiritual nature. Christians today have a lot of re-learning to do. IE-Adam was not an Israelite, the Hebrews are only one tribe of Adams decedents. Moses was not a Christian. The ten commandments are not a Christian document, and a proper Christian doesn't/shouldn't need them. The Ice Man has been found to be of European genetics which means someone has the bible wrong. And that's what we found, Europeans are not descendants of Adam. The descendants of Adam are Middle Eastern genetic lines. Adam is not a matter of genetics, but rather an "enlightened person" and that enlightenment is the basis of Christianity. In a review of Apostle input you will find they regard JC as "Adam the second".His genetics isn't what makes him Adam #2---it's his knowledge and mental makeup. Europeans descend from a different migration out of Africa. The Pope is history, as good as gone. If you think his past flat earth idea was bad, wait to see what's coming. He is not a Christian and we can prove it. Neither is Pat Robertson. You need to back up a bit and take another look at things. Christian things are Christian things, and material things are material things.

Wow, hey! Here's an angle I didn't expect to see. I'm glad to see it.

I've heard this perspective before and all in all, Biblically speaking, it is possible be it that it has been theorized that there were other people around. The focus of the Ot of course is a specific genealogy line which it follows all the way to Jesus. This opens up the possibility of many other Adams for many different cultures around the world.

The only problem i have with this perspective is that the study I referenced to seemed to indicate that all nationalities, including Europeans can be traced genetically back to Africa. Now of course I didn't run this study, but with the sample groups they've chosen, they seemed pretty convinced to say that they were a representation of all peoples. Granted there's a margin of error, but I don't believe it would be that big.

He basically did by making the Hebrew word for Day not specific to a literal 24 hour period, but generally a reference to a period of time. Some English translations would word it; "...and the there was light and darkness on a third day" key word being "a" and not "the" suggesting that the Hebrew in this case wasn't referencing specifically to THEE third day, but a third day or third period of creation. You will notice that the 6th day is referenced with the definite article due to its significance in the story being the last day of creation.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

How much is this variance ?

depending on when in creation this took place, the variance could be great with random gravitational pulls and no particular organization to the galaxy or solar system at the time.

As far as the Bible is concerned, is the precise concrete time a necessary tool? In science is it? Science has only an estimate and can't claim a precise concrete term for the possible Big Bang, this would be the same idea. All that we need to know is that there were periods of time of creation for this story. what is written is what is necessary to know. If every detail was written down, as one of the books of the Bible states, it's possible that all the libraries in the world could not hold the volumes of books that would have to be written.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Because the issue of semantics allows for the use of massive equivocation, so much so that even commonly used terms such as "day" begin to lose any real meaning.

you obviously haven't studied the Hebrew at all. It's not so much as to the common term day, but rather the translation of the Hebrew word into day. If you want to be literal about it, we translated the word day from a word representing literally a period of time. It's like someone saying that an event happened last week and you in turn write it down as happening tuesday. By context you conclude.. the context in the Biblical case is a period of itme that consisted of a time of light and a time of dark.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Perhaps, but God allegedly would have had complete understanding of his creation and could have easily directed the "author" to simply record what he is being told. The "author" need not comprehend God's explanation in order to transcribe it.

which is exactly what the author did. Keep in mind when translating something down as is, you still have to explain it in a way that others are going to understand and God would have also taken that into consideration. He may have known that today we'd understand a more complicated explanation of creation, but back then, he also knew they would not and it was important for them to get it as well.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Again, this haphazard method of Divine communication can only lead one to believe that if God actually existed that he most certainly was not concerned with relaying the creation narrative in a way that inspires credibility and in "such a way that others would understand it it." The endless speculation that you are qualifying your statements with clearly indicates that even you do not "understand" in any definitive way. The best that you have offered so far is hopeful guessing.

I was using the last part as a hypothetical under the condition that the author literally meant a day (which is widely accepted not to be the case). It was to defer anyone who's assumption may conclude that the contextual evidence was misunderstood by scholars. What I have offered you can research and confirm yourself. YOu can't do that with hopeful guessing

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Genesis has the waters, then light, then dry land, then land plants, then stars, then the Sun and Moon, then Ocean life and birds, then land animals.

The book of Genesis also has "the order wrong" when compared to other world religions that offer a different creation scenario. How do those discrepancies affect the possibility of them actually being true ?

I think very little. There are many reasons the "order could be wrong" or possible right by explanation. ONe reason I covered already discussing why teh stars and sun and moon might not have yet been visible though other things were created..

the other possible explanation is the fact that teh author had to recollect what was told... He apparently forgot his laptop at home and had to take quick notes to later transcribe into a formal account of events. Given the fact that he was given a whole story as to which he was not familiar with, it is very possible in rewriting that the order was just misplaced. Without the proper scientific and general knowledge we have today, it would be easy to get those facts mixed up. It'd be like me verbally telling you the process of an experiment with multiple steps on a concept that you are completely unfamiliar with. It is very possible you might misplace certain pieces of information.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

If God did feed it to the people, then why would you automatically assume it was fable?

Why would you assume that it was true ?

in context of the post, because God fed it to the people....

logically and out of context of the post, I didn't assume. I did my homework

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

The same can be said regarding any alleged deity. The Abrahamic god lives in a very crowded neighborhood.

You're right, so the next question would be why this God? and then the whole topic shifts to a completely different focus

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Again, supernatural assumptions to the rescue. In fact, the need for assumptions seems to be the biggest obstacle your God faces and he's somehow never been able to rid himself of their entangling effect.

Actually, my point was that it was solely assumptions that were being used to try and prove the Bible to be false.

There are many possibilities and reasonable conclusions as to why thing were written as they were and still hold true. I've given example to some

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Stupid people who created an equally stupid God. A stupid God who somehow is incapable of simply providing unambiguous, decisive answers. Seems to be a pattern.

Perception my friend. unambiguous answers to us today, precise answers to them back then.

God would have known that this would be a writing for people of all times and so it needed to be simple, not detailed so as to not lose those with less understanding.

Also, do you learn better by someone telling you the answer or by discovering it yourself?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Another assumption on your part ?

You can't prove anything on assumption, therefore I would not have said, "...this proves" if it was an assumption. I made reference to the focus of reasoning and it is again researchable.

Do you misinterpret and mischaracterize everything intentionally? Is that what underpins your personal brand of sophistry?

Or do you really have reading comprehension problems?

I'm thinking it's the former.

No comprehending, I only asked you a question. Therefore by asking I can't misinterpret or mischaracterize, only you can by answering the question. YOu did a good job avoiding the question though.. kudos

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I dont' think you need to start a debate with me...

Then why didn't you just sit back, shutup and watch someone else attempt the mental gymnastics that always fail to argue the premise of objective moral duties actually being rooted in a god's nature.

I guess I just like pissing you off... or maybe it's that I want you to start thinking before you speak and not base your conclusions on quick assumptions.

redneF wrote:

Anytime I ever gave you the spotlight you've disappointed me with blather that wouldn't even win a high school level debate.

How can you compare a debate when you never stuck around long enough to get one going? Debates are focused, you're all over the place, then you walk out

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...just ask most of your other Atheist friends on here.. I have a feeling they could asnwer that for you.

You'd have to point out to me which atheists on here, in particular, would agree with you that situational ethics are not what really exist, instead of 'absolute moral laws'.

Ah, so it's not a question of whether there is reason to avoid those particular things, it's a question of basis... which is my original assumption that I thought I clearly stated. e.g. I hoped you were questioning his basis of understanding... which to that you could have answered a simple "yes" and it wouldn't have gone this far.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Besides, last time we tried a debate that you were so determined to try, you ran from it... BOTH TIMES we tried to start it.

lol...ya, I ran from you like I'd run away from Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron.

apparently

redneF wrote:

I walk away when the level of sophistry is such an insult to my intelligence that I feel that the next 'proof of god' that's around the corner is going to be a banana...

anyone can say that losing or winning, but to stick around and back yourself up, well that takes an effort. One you have yet to put forth. I really don't feel like turning this thread into a discussion of who's who between you and I. If you really want to get into this, let's go back to our hybernating debate thread.

redneF wrote:

Besides, we can still hear a pin drop in your thread on the best reasons to believe in an Ambrahamic god, since you've been backed into a corner.

It's fucking amazing how easy it is to get you to shutup.

Just be willing to quietly listen...lmao

your basing my best reasons off of something I told you strait out would first need to be a focus to you and is subjective to what is of interest to you be it that this topic covers a great array of avenues and not all are accepted by every person, but at least one would be accepted by each if they were willing to discuss it.

again Kudos. Ya got me. Ya backed me into a corner... In the words of Jock in Finding Nemo; "I am ashamed"

Why don't you just accept that you're an agnostic atheist and cafeteria Christian poseur?

..because I know what I know and so far no one has shown me logic in why I should change that understanding though I have kept an open mind to all the information given to me, despite what you might believe. Sorry Red.